Page images
PDF
EPUB

REASON AND FAITH.-A GOD IN JEOPARDY.

61

evident truths or axioms. We know intuitively that two and two are not five. Even God himself could not make us believe that two and two are five without changing our nature. The same remark applies to all first principles. The denial of them shocks the human mind, and does violence to our constitution. Now, as Transubstantiation spurns the testimony of the senses, outrages all the principles of reason, and mocks the common sense of mankind, it cannot be from God. If the dogma were really in the Bible, it would utterly destroy its claim to be a revelation from Him. Archbishop Tillotson truly said, that an absurdity so monstrous, were it evidently contained in Scripture, would sink Christianity itself. Bring what arguments you may in favour of the Bible-appeal to all the evidences, external and internal, that support it—still, if it teach that a wafer is a living man, it thereby furnishes against itself evidence a hundred-fold more powerful than any that can be brought in its favour. Were we to receive the Bible, with this millstone about it, we should, in order to be Christian, cease to be rational; and our faith in the God of revelation would involve a renunciation of the God of nature. We must believe that our eyes are deceivers, and see nothing that is before them. The touch at once verifies their testimony, but it still is an illusion. The smell interposes, and corroborates the evidence of its fellows; and last comes the taste, and at once pronounces them all in the right. Hearing cannot interfere in this question. It can only testify as to the utterance of certain sounds by the priest; but, as to their meaning or transforming power, it can say nothing for or against. Here, then, are four competent witnesses that have been our faithful friends and nnerring guides through life that have never in a single instance deceived us, except, perhaps, when disordered by sickness-whose testimony is not confronted by any conflicting evidence of the same kind on the opposite side, for even the Roman Catholics that swallow the wafer can perceive nothing more in it than their opponents. Shall we not believe these witnesses? The man that rejected their testimony in any other case but this would require the care of his friends, being fit only for a lunatic asylum.

I once saw a woman receiving the Eucharist. She held out her tongue, as usual; but it happened that the wafer caught fast on a large projecting tooth, on which it remained suspended for a considerable time, to the great horror of the priest, whose ejaculations of "miserable woman!” “ unhappy wretch" filled our minds with alarm for the fate of the poor communicant. He devoutly came to the rescue; and, taking his helpless god gently between the forefinger and thumb, safely lodged him on the woman's tongue, that he might be transferred to the stomach! Is this the Lord of life and glory!

My dear friend, I do not wish to hurt your feelings by turning your faith into ridicule, although it is very difficult to treat this subject with gravity ; and one seems not only justified in taking up the weapons of satire where men are inaccessible to reason, but almost impelled to the disagreeable task

62

62

CONTRADICTIONS.-POWER Of god.

by a sense of duty, in order, if possible, to arouse our beloved countrymen from their fatal lethargy. But I trust you, at least, are accessible to reason. Let us attend then to the following considerations.

If Transubstantiation be true, the following contradictions must be admitted :

1. A thing may exist without its essential attributes. Christ is divested of these in the wafer, which has neither thought, feeling, nor motion.

2. The attributes or "accidents" of a body may exist without the substance in which they naturally inhere. The Eucharist presents all the attributes without the substance of bread and wine.

3. A body bounded in space may be in ten thousand places at the same time. Thus the human body of Christ may be on all the altars on earth at the same moment, and also in hundreds of millions of stomachs !

"That

4. A part is equal to the whole. The Host, when elevated by the priest, is the body of Christ; and the Council of Trent decreed (canon 3) the body of Jesus Christ is entirely contained in the sacramental Eucharist under either species; and, after separation, under every part of these species!" Hence, if one of the communicants divided the portion of the wafer given to him into a thousand parts, and then swallowed them, he would have a thousand human bodies in his stomach! And these all made out of one body! and, after all, there is but one body of Christ! Amazing infatuation!

5. That which exists already may begin to be. Jesus has existed in his human nature for more than eighteen centuries; but the priest gives him existence forms him out of bread and wine-every time he says mass. "The Son of God is formed in the species without creation, generation, or motion, and exists without locality, quantity, or extension.*

These may serve as a specimen of the numerous contradictions which flow from this teeming fountain of absurdity and monstrosities. We are told by Roman Catholics, that in opposing this tenet we call in question the power of God. But we do no such thing. We know that with God all things are possible that do not involve a contradiction. He cannot deny himself—cannot lie cannot be unjust or ignorant-cannot cease to be in any particular place cannot change. He can create innumerable worlds with a word, but cannot make a thing to be and not to be at the same time. He might change a mouse into an elephant; but then the elephant so formed would not be a When the rod cast from the hand of Moses (Exod. iv. 3) became a

mouse.

* Since this work was first sent to press I have read a pamphlet entitled "Transubstantiation proved to be impossible," by Alexander Carson, A.M.-Dublin, Wm. Carson. The object of the author is to show that this dogma subverts the foundation of human belief; and this he does with transcendent ability. It is an essay which, for cogency of argument and felicity of illustration, has seldom been equalled-and for the withering power of its sarcasm, never surpassed since the days of Elijah the Tishbite.

RESURRECTION.-INCREDULITY OF THOMAS.

63

serpent, it was not a rod. God never required any one to believe in an exercise of his power producing a change not evident to the senses. To them, Moses in his miracles appealed, and so did our Lord himself.

He appeared to the disciples, " to whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs"-Acts i. 3. Now what were these “ many infallible proofs," by which his resurrection was demonstrated to his followers? You will find them recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke. “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me to have. And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his feet."

Now, dear friend, mark well this passage.

[ocr errors]

Jesus submitted his person to

the examination of the senses, to prove that he was really their Lord and Master. "Handle me and see.' "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me to have." It seems, then, Jesus has flesh and bones; so your Church teaches. But flesh and bones can be handled and seen; and if, when we make the experiment in this way, we cannot find flesh and bones in the wafer, we must be excused if we affirm that it certainly is not Jesus himself. The apostles were the witnesses of what they felt, and saw, and heard; and on the testimony of their senses rests the whole superstructure of Christianity! If they be found false witnesses-that is, if the senses are not to be relied on -the Church's faith is vain: she is yet in her sins.

But then we are told that Thomas was incredulous, and that a blessing is pronounced on those who believe without seeing. Yes, without, but not against, seeing. Thomas is not censured for not believing against the senses, but for not believing on testimony. The Churches of God have ever since rested on the evidence which Thomas rejected—namely, the assertion of the apostles as to what they saw, and felt, and heard. A chosen few were selected to bear this testimony to an unbelieving world—a testimony perfectly unexceptionable, and so abundantly corroborated by a vast accumulation of other evidence, that no man who honestly weighs it can turn away from it without being convinced. But if, instead of the living, well-known person of Christ, with its "human face divine," the other apostles had presented Thomas with a loaf of bread, would he have been bound to believe that this

was the risen Savionr? Most certainly not. And if the disciples had pointed to the bread and wine used at the Lord's Supper, and said, "Here lies Jesus of Nazareth, the very person who hung on the cross, and rose from the grave," they would have been laughed at by every man of common sense as the most pitiable fanatics; and Christianity itself would have perished from the earth, forgotten among those innumerable abortions of superstition which mark an age of ignorance and religious enthusiasm.

64

SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS.-LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

I have said, that were this dogma contained in the Bible, it could not be received as a book inspired by God. It is incumbent on me, therefore, to prove that it is not in the Bible; and to this point I now request your earnest attention. I may first remark, that the most celebrated divines of your Church admit that it is not a Scriptural doctrine. This concession is very important from such men as Scotus, Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, Bellarmine, and Bishop Fisher.

I will first advert to the 6th chapter of the Gospel by John, which modern writers quote with very great confidence, but which I shall prove to be wholly inapplicable. For if eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ be taken as referring to the Lord's Supper, it would confine salvation to those who partake of the Eucharist, thus excluding infants, and the whole Jewish Church for many ages, as well as others who, from various circumstances, could not communicate. "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”—V. 53. These are the words; from which it would follow, on Papal principles, that none but communicants are in a state of salvation. And from the following words it appears, with equal clearness, that no one that receives the Eucharist can ever be lost! "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath etenal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Can this language refer to the sacrament ? No, my friend; it is a strongly figurative mode of expressing (in the Oriental style) the act of believing on the Son of God. The same thing is frequently called coming to Christ; of which we have an instance in this very chapter, verse 35, which is perfectly synonymous with the one already quoted :—“ He that cometh unto me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst;" and in verse 40, where precisely the same consequences are ascribed to faith as to eating the flesh. The Jews, understanding our Lord's words literally, he condescended to explain them, saying, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life." What can be more satisfactory?

The ancient fathers did not agree with your divines on this point. Origen says the letter of this passage kills. Augustine lays it down as a principle of interpretation, that if any passage of Scripture seem to command a "heinous wickedness," it must not be understood literally; and he selects the 6th of John as an illustration. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is most "heinous wickedness" indeed, of which, according to this great father, the modern Roman Catholics are guilty. But it is unnecessary to dwell on this passage, for three general councils have conceded that the language does not apply to the Eucharist at all, and that it must be understood figuratively and spiritually; even the Council of Trent, eager as they were for arguments, gave up this text to the enemy.*

The three Councils that give the weight of their authority to the spiritual meaning of the phrase, "Eating the Lord's flesh, and drinking his blood," are Constance, Basil, and Trent; not, indeed, by any formal decision, but by authorising the exposition of certain orators, spe

[ocr errors]

LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

66

65

You

Turn we now to the words of institution, Matth. xxvi. 26-29. say this language must be understood according to the letter, as asserting a real substantial change. Be it so let us analyse it according to the letter. "Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it (the bread which is the only antecedent in the sentence *) to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.' Now, mark, it was bread he gave them, which they held in their hands, when he uttered the supposed magical words of consecration, "Hoc est corpus meum." Does the priest say, Take, eat," before he consecrates? Then he does not act according to the letter! Again, according to the strict letter, his words can apply only to the identical piece of bread which he then held in his hand. Supposing that to be really changed into his body, how can it be thence inferred that every piece of bread that a priest chooses to take into his fingers may be thus transformed? Is not this drawing a general conclusion from a particular premise? But is it right to call a wafer "bread?" The people ask for bread; and the priest gives them—not a serpent, indeed—but a wafer! And this is acting according to the letter! But why not give the cup? Jesus gave it, and said, "Drink ye all of this." This is plain enough. But your Church does not give the cup at all, and yet she acts according to the letter! Marvellous! But this is not all. Our Lord says (speaking according to the letter) that the cup and not the wine is his blood. Is the vessel transubstantiated into blood? It must be so, since the words are to be understood literally! Once more; this same blood thus made out of a cup is afterwards called the "fruit of the vine." Now,

cially appointed to express their opinions on the subject. For this fact, I am indebted to the kindness of the learned author of the "Variations of Popery," who states it on the authority of Labbeus, the Jesuit historian of the Councils.-Labbeus, xvi. 1141, and xvii. 930, and xx. 613. The disputed passage in John vi. has been understood and explained in a figurative sense, as signifying spiritual eating and drinking, by the following Fathers:-Ignatius, Cyril, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bede, and Theophylact-Ignatius ad Trall. Aug. de Doctrin.

Cyril, 293.

316, and Ser. 131. Chrys. Hom. 47. Bede in Cor. x. Theoph. in John vi. "Albertin has enumerated thirty Roman Pontiffs, Cardinals, Bishops, or Commentators, who interpret this part of John's Gospel in a spiritual sense, and reject the idea of its application to the sacrament. This was the explanation of the two Popes, Innocent and Pius. According to Innocent III.- Our Lord, in this passage, speaks of spiritual manducation. His body is eaten spiritually-that is, in faith.' Comeditur spiritualiter, id est, in fide."Innocent, De Myst, Miss. iv. 14.

'The

The

"Pius II. concurs, and, if possible, in still more explicit language, with Innocent. Son of God,' says this Pope, 'treats there not of sacramental, but spiritual drinking. communion was not then instituted, and how, therefore, could they eat and drink Jesus but by faith? Those who believed in him were the persons who eat his flesh and drank his blood; for faith is the only means of such participation. Jesus on the occasion spoke in figurative language.""-In Lenf. ii. 211, 242.-See the elaborate, accurate, and able work of Mr. Edgar on the "Variations of Popery."

* Some hypercritical person may object that artos cannot be the grammatical antecedent, inasmuch as the pronoun is neuter. But it certainly refers to the bread which our Lord had taken in his hand; and if we must have the precise noun which is pointed out by the demonstrative Touro, that noun cannot be σwa, as the supposed change into his body had not yet taken place; but rather onμiov-a sign, token, or symbol.

G

« PreviousContinue »